The First Amendment Must Trump Our Aversion to Stormy Details

Yes, Trump’s alleged promises to get her on The Apprentice gives a “casting couch” grossness to this story that sounds very Weinstein-esque. But adding it to the mix muddies the waters of the nearly twenty women that have come forward to report non-consensual groping, kissing, and sexual assaults.

And the effort to give “Stormy Daniels” some hush money? Perhaps campaign funds were improperly used, but in this day and age of “no holds barred” campaign spending by both parties, it’s hard to get worked up about that—especially considering Trump was running against Team Clinton, which has its own history of attempting to keep ex-mistresses away from the media.

Yet, even though this story belongs in a tabloid and is beneath the dignity of an esteemed program like 60 Minutes, they have a fundamental First Amendment right to report it.

As we speak, though, Trump's legal team is going balls to the wall trying to stop the Stormy Daniels interview from airing, presumably arguing that a nondisclosure agreement prevents her from disclosing events that Trump, of course, continues to insist never happened.

Stopping it from airing, however, would be a serious breach of the long-held judicial view that prior restraint of speech should only be granted in the most narrow of circumstances.

Prior restraint is the subject of The Post, a recent movie which recounts the U.S. government’s 1971 attempt to prevent publication of the politically damning Pentagon Papers.

Stopping it from airing, however, would be a serious breach of the long-held judicial view that prior restraint of speech should only be granted in the most narrow of circumstances.

It was also the subject of the famous case involving this publication, United States v. The Progressive, where the government blocked the publication of an article containing what it claimed were closely guarded secrets about H-bomb design. Those secrets turned out to be not so hard to come upon, and after six months the government was forced to abandon its case.

Both of these efforts to shut down the presses failed—and they were about things a little more important than tawdry details of Trump getting spanked—allegedly—with a copy of Forbes magazine that had his face on the cover.

In addition, legal scholars note that while Trump may have damages to sort out with Daniels, 60 Minutes was never party to any non-disclosure agreement.

Still, however frivolous, the notion that a U.S. President would even attempt to squash this kind of speech is in itself troubling.

The United States is not Russia, no matter how much Trump may wish it were. Here the First Amendment will be protecting the right of the press to tell embarrassing truths about Presidents long into the future.

Jud Lounsbury is a political writer based in Madison, Wisconsin and a frequent contributor to The Progressive. He also blogs at uppitywis.org and you can find him on Twitter @judlounsbury.

Tags

Comments (1)

You of course neglect the fact...

...that Ms. Daniels WILLFULLY signed away her right to free-speech in consideration of a healthy sum of cash. Nobody can actually prevent her from speaking - she can speak. But she cannot be immune to the consequences she agreed to when she signed that contract. So by all means let her speak - and then require she pay damages to Mr. Trump - or whoever - for her breach.

Cicero243 days ago

Get the latest Progressive news

Subscribe for our free newsletter.

Hey there Progressive Reader—your help is needed.

If you like what you see here, please subscribe to our digital edition for just $10. Digital subscriptions give you access to all our content with enhanced links and illustrations. Digital subscriptions also support our online reporting and important projects like Public School Shakedown and The Progressive Media Project.